Saturday, October 15, 2016

In which inquiring minds gather at the lizard Oz for a reading of 'Ned' Kelly and the chairman's ancient tweets ...

As usual, there's a feast for the inquiring mind at the lizard Oz this weekend ...

The dog botherer on the climate of gay marriage - oh yes, let's have another double dissolution, the last one worked so tremendously well - Lomborg on organic ... because Monsanto ... maybe they can replace the Australian government as Lomborgian sponsors ... and the 'leets being roasted yet again and 'leet Niall squawking.

It's all too delicious ... but the pond is perverse, and the lure of a righteous, pompous "Ned" Kelly is always irresistible...

By golly, that's the spirit Ned, and before he fell into Twitter silence - the great void of unknowing - the chairman spoke his mind on this very subject ...

Yes, it would be mad not to unify behind the Trumpster, and that's why the pond was delighted to read Ned.

Let's face it, even then, if you had half a clue, you didn't have to be a groped woman to know that the Donald was a braggart, a bully, and a bankrupt, with suspicious business practices.

That's why the pond was delighted to see Ned calling benighted chairman Rupert a tragic global joke who has betrayed his country his party and ...

Now read on, with the usual caution that it will be a long and turgid read, and the pond assumes no responsibility for any consequent dementia ...

Now it's possibly all true enough, that the Donald shouldn't have become the Republican nominee for president, and his campaign represents the greatest failure of the Republicans and of American conservatism and chairman Rupert conservatism since the second world war, but where was Ned when the chairman was in his salad Twitter days?

Over at Quadrant, they are in a state of shock, but still blindly supporting the groper, and outraged by the yellow coat treachery of the reptiles ...

Indeed, indeed, Steve Yates, well played and more here, where's the harm in a little harmless groping? Sheesh, women, always complaining, and your inspired piece inspired an array of complaints in the comments section ...

I was shocked to read The Australian’s headlines this morning which were rejoicing over Trump now being out of the race for the election over some stupid blokey comments from the past. Such unbridled establishment-driven wishful thinking and partisanship is sickening to behold from the media. I stopped taking The Australian seriously a while ago, but now it has sunk to new depths. 

 ” … stopped taking The Australian seriously a while ago, but now it has sunk to new depths” Been sinking for well over 12 months now. It’s slowly being turned downmarket and PC. I think the slow rate is due to a combination of staff management and an assumption that its’ core audience will not notice. Well, does The Aus matter any more ? Nope … 

There are some particularly good political writers in The Australian: Jennifer Oriel’s Monday columns are excellent, and Janet Albrechtsen’s articles are very good too. So of the others are infuriating, I agree. 

 Newsl limited’s rally behind the Clintons just makes the case that Australia is truly a backwater pond of supplicants still wanting the USA to carry their can of wishy-washy socialism. 

Greg Sheridan is excellent; he’s one of the very few in the mainstream media who has a stone-cold sober and authoritative view of the USA. His comments are usually educated and thoughtful. Then there’s Tom Switzer from the US Studies Centre at Sydney University. Normally excellent, but he has taken too many paul kelly pills lately. Both have proved absolutely worthless on trump,and being blinded by their personal revulsion of trumps style. But both journalists envisage themselves of champions of rational,disinterested observers, and of style over substance. Who is feeding this fire of style over substance that they complain dominates our contemporary culture, so evidenced in this election?

Paul Kelly pills?

Oh that's too cruel, too cruel by far ...

No doubt at some point in the piece Ned will try to compensate and please the alienated lunar loons with a ritual bashing of the Clintons, as a way of displaying balance and showing integrity, as well as pleasing the chairman ...

Not bad, but the trouble is, the reptiles have lost the direct daily Twittering master's voice to tell them what to think.

All that remains in the sands are the tea leaves and the runes of long ago ...

More presidential? Everyone a better option than the Dems? What sayeth the Ned?

Strange. It didn't seem this way not so long ago ...

Ah Roger, a great production, and surely the Trumpster has the winning strategy ...

How things can change within a calendar year ... but thankfully, now Roger the groper is helping Donald the groper better refine his message ...

But enough of the ironies and attempting to understand who facilitated and enabled the Donald, it's time for a last gobbet from the clueless Ned ...safely sidestepping the past few years to do a tour of history ...

That's it? No mention of the Tweeting chairman or his many minions and lickspittles eagerly doing his bidding? Not a single kind world about Sean 'Lumpy' Hannity or Bill Orally?

Thank heavens that things are still ship-shape on the home front and the reptiles' relentless campaign on climate science, SSM and other favourite demons continues to bear fruit...

Ah, that's another story and another reptile triumph ...


  1. Steve Kates, not Yates, according to my definitive Guide to Australian Loons. His contributions to the Catallaxy blog are a joy to read for the connoisseur of Tea Party theories - there is literally nothing he will not believe from the far right and nothing he will believe from what he perceives as the left (which is most of the known world bar Brietbart and Drudge).

    1. Here is a paragraph from Steve Kates' latest post at his blog that I can't even type without laughing.

      "Alpha males and females are a breed apart. They are rare but are the natural leaders of any society (like Margaret Thatcher). Donald Trump is on our side in every issue of the moment, and what you must hope for with all your heart is that he wins the election in November. I will not listen to such idiocies about his personal eccentricities and personality flaws when the stakes are as high as they are. The sunshine conservatives who would hesitate for a fraction of a second in making Donald Trump the American president are not on our side."

  2. Yes Quadrant is now a very strange kettle of rotting fish.

    On the one hand it features fatuous essays by Peter Smith promoting the Victory of Reason as promoted by the 3rd rate "scholar" Rodney Stark. While simultaneously promoting the fatuous claim that when people stop believing in "god" they will believe almost anything.
    Never mind that if anyone truly used reason how could they possibly believe or promote the nonsense that one is "saved" by believing in the "resurrection" of Jesus or that the Bible is the "word of 'god'", and all of the rest of the christian baggage/nonsense. There are of course now more than 35,000 different and differing varieties of christianism which goes to show that P T Barnum was wrong - there are thousands of suckers born every minute. Most/all of these outfits feed on these gullible suckers, plus they are also excellent money-making scams created by their founders, knowing that "religions" receive all kinds of favorable tax breaks and exemptions.
    Reason can of course be used to "prove" almost anything. Sites such as Reasonable Faith and Let Us Reason use it to support the entirely bogus Christian "truth" claims.
    On the other hand Sam Harris via his excellent Reason Project uses it to demolish ALL of the Christian "truth" claims. Sam is perhaps at times a bit over the top but his books Letter To a Christian Nation, The End of Faith, and Wake Up are superb.
    Then there is the all-American Christian loon Ravi Zacharias who writes ridiculous books titled The Death of Reason aimed at the work of Sam Harris and others too.

    On the other hand Quadrant is now effectively aligned with and promotes the deeply irrational world-view promoted by Breitbart and all of the other deeply psychotic alternative-right outfits that are associated with it, many of which are deeply anti-semitic - as is the case with Breitbart too.
    Which is also interesting because Quadrant also recently featured an essay by Jonathan Sacks lamenting the very real world-wide growth of anti-semitism

  3. "More presidential? Everyone a better option than the Dems? What sayeth the..." punters?

    No, I'm going to vote for Trump for:

    1. The Wall
    2. Balanced Trade
    3. Manufacturing Jobs
    4. The 2nd Amendment

    Because if I were to change my mind and vote for Hillary because Trump is vulgar, I would also suddenly be supporting:

    1. Open Borders
    2. Trade Deficit
    3. Jobs at McDonald's
    4. Gun Control

    Can you imagine anyone suddenly making that leap "Trump is vulgar, so now I'm for everything I was against yesterday"

    A pox on both because one is like the restaurant owner who pays off the health inspector to obtain an A-grade on a filthy restaurant . . . the other is the dirty health inspector!

    Me? I'm holding my nose and voting for Trump. Why? Simply because I know what Clinton represents and I don't want more of the same.

    Interesting that the Guardian has decided to suggest that Wikileaks leaks on HRC are faked. They obviously are not faked. Also no mention here of HRC's passionate avowal of globalism or what this might mean for the destruction of America. It will certainly require the destruction of America. The Guardian is as determined as HRC to see the full globalist agenda foisted on the world.

    1. Sorry for you but the Simpsons are not on your side

    2. Sorry for you not paying attention, but the punters' comments there are so not on your side.

    3. Comments? I comment, you comment, why would I read comments when all they do is take sides?
      You like sides? Sides lead to wars. I don't like war, from what I see and hear about it.
      You might like war. You think Hillary likes war. I don't think so. I have reasoning that supports my pov that she is more rational and able to change her former policies and beliefs about what war is good for.
      Call me delusional but you can't prove it. ��

    4. You put me in mind of a punter's comment seen there disputing the Simpsons' shared msm owners' big biz conformist view on things electoral: "It's only propaganda if you can't think for yourself." That got me to thinking of George Costanza's: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

    5. Not sure what you mean sorry but I think I object to your characterisation of me as having a conformist view on things electoral.
      Banal and meaning less to be quoting Seinfeld as relevant to a dispute about propaganda. But there we go eh? More meaninglessness and comments about nothing. Sigh.

  4. All the blathering about Charles Murray is so much old hat. There is a better book than Murray's by Robert Putnam and in this article in the New York Review of Books

    Nicholas Lemann reviews his latest book which is much the same but better, he says than Murray's.

    "Murray’s book was based mainly on other people’s published research and his largely suppositional evocations of two places he called Belmont and Fishtown.

    "Putnam, who thanks thirteen “generous supporters” (mostly major foundations), six members of “the administrative side of our operations,” and dozens of field researchers, experts, colleagues, and local observers, was able to send interviewers to look firsthand at life in nine widely scattered sites in addition to Port Clinton.

    "In Our Kids each of a series of chapters combines a summary of quantitative research findings with vivid ethnographic accounts of the lives of actual people, though, in accordance with social science rules, Putnam doesn’t give us their real names (indeed, he tells us, in most cases he doesn’t know their real names).

    "And Putnam writes clear, impassioned, accessible prose that brings two generations’ worth of academic findings into range for people who don’t study these subjects for a living."

    Sounds good but the important bit is that both Murray and Putnam are both pointing out the importance of social capital which is all the things that prosperous societies have but they do not understand the relationship between social capital and prosperity.

    Which is as the author of the review, Nicholas Lemann asks at the end of the probably tl/dr article.

    "It could even be that, rather than social capital generating prosperity, prosperity might generate social capital, which would mean Putnam has been showing us the effects of inequality, not the causes."


Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.